Greenwald: Real Reporter
Everyone on MTP: Talking Heads
actually its good that Gregory asked this question and gave Greenwald an opportunity to embarrass him
"some argue that all non-whites should be enslaved or killed, what do you think of that?"
|Robin Kestrel |
"Leaks" from anonymous Government sources designed to manipulate public opinion = good.
The truth = bad.
American journalism = a joke.
I hadn't ever really thought of it that way, but yes. The media has supposedly been revealing information leaked by "anonymous sources" over and over again. The media's very different reaction to these leaks suggests that they were quite aware that the other leaks were intentional on the part of the administration.
Next up we ask a person that smashed a window to enter a burning building, and rescuing an infant from the burning flames, to confirm that they committed a felony by breaking and entering.
My only regret is that I have no stars left to give.
Meet the Press. Please.
Also, Fun Facts about David Gregory:
He's married to a former Fannie Mae executive vice president.
Michael Chertoff, the second Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush and co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, attended a baby shower for one of Gregory's kids.
The conservative Media Research Center named him 'Best White House Correspondent'.
He was never prosecuted for bringing an illegal high capacity magazine on Meet the Press with Wayne LaPierre, even though NBC asked police permission and was denied.
|Sexy Duck Cop |
Oh look everyone Glenn Greenwald is outraged.
I realize the NSA might be reading this but Snowden is a hero. I applaud anyone who helps him and, given the chance, I'd help him myself.
Why? because suddenly this is happening on Obama's watch? Your kind could have actually, you know, maybe voted in the country's best interests way back when but instead you tacitly supported this shit, lock, stock and barrel when carried water for Bush and the rest of the 'MURICA Republicans. Oh, but see..Obama is the one that's out of control....
You couldn't be more wrong.
a lot of conservatives have actually supported Obama on this one, and they pretty much hate everything else he's has ever done
its a Bush policy that Obama continued and intensified
Snowden is not a hero, he's either a spook, a flaming hypocrite of the first order, or a dumb rich kid with impulse control problems and an absurd degree of self-importance. He could have actually forced the Libertarians to admit that they care more about race baiting and bullshit about gold standards than actual issues of liberty, constitutional consent and freedom of the press, by staying in the states, taking in to the Senate and pushing for actual eyeballs on the issue. But he didn't, the Libertarians cling ever closer to the GOP, and nothing will change. He gets to play James Bond, and the rest of us stand around having to say "He's a hero!" because circumstances require us to.
so he should have stuck around and waited to be bradley manning'ed where he could effectively do nothing and say nothing, that's a cool idea of bravery you've got right there. party politics are more important than this shit that is enthusiastically embraced under both parties!!
fuck off idiot
Bradley Manning has two shots against him: he's a soldier, and he's gay. A straight, white, wholesome looking chap like Snowden could have obliterated the scene. Instead of focusing on the actual details of the case, now the media can focus on the dramatics of the deed. Nothing changes and they have a sock puppet soap opera to be distracted by. He'd have had nothing to hold it back. Instead, the Libertarians can continue being racists and misogynists and soiling the word "liberty", the Intelligence/Corporate Fasces continues marching on, and the level of discourse remains at grunting bumper stickers at each other.
Heroes are made of sterner stuff. We haven't seen a hero since they shot Martin Luther King.
The Great Hippo
That's an incredibly silly perspective. You have no idea what this person's situation is. And by insisting he's somehow terrible, you make this as much about him as the people who insist he's an unassailable hero.
You don't actually know how much danger this person is in, or if he had to flee for his life. You're just another person with Opinions on the Internet.
Hey, so are the rest of us. My point is just this: Be slow to form an Opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about.
Also, I agree that The Stupids was a ton of stupid fun!
It's a dreadful truth, but it will take a white, thin, straight, short-haired man within three years of 30 to actually get anything through the Space Invaders of personality politics to actually hit the machine. It's a terrible and ugly fact. Snowden came close and blew it.
The Great Hippo
Well, okay, but I don't think that was ever his responsibility in the first place. I'm also not sure why you're assigning a political motivation to him that clearly is your own.
Dude told us why he did this: He thought it was wrong and thought the American people deserved to know about it. However you disagree with his presentation, he apparently gave up a lot for his belief that we deserve to know what our government is doing.
I mean, yeah, maybe he could have been more politically savvy about all this; I genuinely don't know. But hating on a dude cuz he didn't throw himself to the wolves is kind of childish.
I mean, you don't have to call him a hero, but I don't think it's fair to demean him just because he didn't do this the way you'd have preferred.
name/hypocrisy synergy with CD today!
Indeed. What was he supposed to do? Stay in the states, get thrown away forever and then we have the EXACT same debate and picture painting of him we're getting now, except with no evidence to the contrary?
Also, you seem to think libertarians are ever going to stop being racist women haters. If you believe that, I have coastal property in Oklahoma to sell you. All the "libertarians" ever did was change their name.
Greenwald is fucking irritating.
"During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country. "
What a non-interesting person. He has too much of a platform to blather on from for so little to stand on.
Yeah, I know. People who make mistakes and admit them and then help to reveal secret spying programs are sooooo much more annoying than those spying programs could ever be!
That's a great point!
"These claim [sic] are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been..
The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates.
I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.
It is true that, like 90% of Americans, I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism: those were obvious mistakes. It's also true that one can legitimately criticize me for not having actively opposed the Iraq War at a time when many people were doing so. Martin Luther King, in his 1967 speech explaining why his activism against the Vietnam War was indispensable to his civil rights work, acknowledged that he had been too slow to pay attention to or oppose the war and that he thus felt obligated to work with particular vigor against it once he realized the need ("Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam").
I've often spoken about the prime benefit of writing about political matters full-time: namely, it enables you to examine first-hand sources and not have to rely upon media or political mediators when forming beliefs. That process has been and continues to be very eye-opening for me.
hah! your hebrew sorcery can't save you now, baleen
In your first comment, you say that he made a mistake and was admitting to his wrongdoing. In your second, you use his retort (I've that link already) to the claim he supported Bush at the beginning of his term in response to the 9-11 attacks.
My opinion of Greenwald in the above is based on reading the actual preface, not pasting it from a blog. That's why I included the entire preface in the link. It's hard to come away from that preface without seeing that Greenwald was supporting of Bush's war policy.
Know what? I was too, a little, and am probably more supportive of the Afghanistan/Iraq War then anyone else I knew on the Left side of things, so long as certain conditions were met, which for the most part, they weren't.
The problem is that he very clearly voices support of Bush war policy and then, in order to be born again as Democracy Now! wunderkind, denies it. The preface is intentionally equivocal, in my opinion, just like Greenwald is in general. I will give you that, he's very good at being agreeable to whatever wind benefits him at the time. Currently it's "Democracy Now!"
He could've excused himself and gone through the machine, which is the correct way to do it. He didn't. A man who goes through Army training, CIA and NSA clearance to the tune of several tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars isn't doing it merely for a chance to retire in Hawaii. He knew what he was in for and for me to be surprised that he found it merely morally objectionable is hard to believe. It plays into a political narrative and the timing was apropos to contribute, which is far more cravenly cowardly than heroic.
But hey, let's ALL play "What would I do if I were hoping to be the hero of a Clive Cussler novel and wound up being a techie for a nebulously scary sounding but mundane, perfectly-legal-if-morally-questionable, government buraucracy?" What a fun game.
The Great Hippo
I dunno, if the machine is the problem, it seems risky to surrender yourself to it in hopes that it will do justice. I bet one of the reasons he ran is because he saw what the machine does to people who expose the truth. I don't know that for sure, but I know plenty of people have very good reasons not to trust the government, and I'm not going to assume Snowden ain't one of them.
But keep in mind, you're the one playing the what-if game. I'm just saying you shouldn't be so quick to presume he was foolish/wrong/lying when he told us he ran for his own safety.
The Great Hippo
I mean, maybe you're right! I dunno. But I don't think you know either, and you're acting like you do. Heck, maybe he's just scared.
So, you're admitting he's a sideways-circumspect, second-guessing coward fearful of bodily harm but still clinging to the hope that Ron Paul gives him a "History's Second Greatest Patriot After Myself" certificate and a gift card to Applebee's?
The Great Hippo
I'm admitting that I don't know, and that whatever straw man you set up to describe a person you know very little about is likely to be wrong.
My *best guess* would be just that he's a very scared guy trying to do what's right. Whatever political angle you assign to that is your own.
|Cherry Pop Culture |
I gave all my fucks years ago when I came of age during the Bush administration. On my Facebook feed, the only people who give a shit about any of this are teabaggers who despise the everything except for the 2nd Amendment.
'I'm just asking the question that many others have been asking'
so you're just reading off a script?
so you could just be replaced by an 18 year old intern that would give their right reproductive organ for national exposure.
you could actually be replaced by an above averagely articulate 8 year old, but child labor laws and whatnot...
(and would be a better journalist than you because kids mostly say they think you're lying when you're lying, instead of changing the subject to keep things from getting awkward and risking someone not wanting to come on your show)
| Register or login To Post a Comment|